Guardians is one of the best additions to the MCU, which has honestly revitalised the superhero genre as a whole (though Guardians isn't a superhero film itself); while other studios flounder, Marvel Studios seems to hit the mark almost every time (Thor 2, Hulk and Iron Man 2 being the only real exceptions). I don't understand your aversion to it, but hey, it takes all sorts. We can agree to disagree.

I actually agree with Smeagol. I used to be really excited for BvS but get less so with every trailer released, and the footage of Wonder Woman has dashed my hopes for that as well. I invite darker takes on iconic characters, but not for what will be the mainstream adaptations of DC material for years to come. Suicide Squad is the only film in their current lineup that merits a dark, gritty film; part of the joy of characters like Superman and Wonder Woman is in its visual vibrancy and, certainly in recent years in the comics, how artists and writers balance modern issues and post-modern severity with classic comic book tropes has made for some of the most interesting reads, DC's New 52 and Marvel's Infinity and Original Sin events being case-in-point. To ignore what makes the comics special in favour of what you think (and are wrong about) what a so-called mainstream audience wants is disrespectful to the original material, to its fans, and to the mainstream audience that Warner Bros is now patronising with its policy of desaturated visuals and 'edgy' tones.

Fant4stic exemplifies this. What makes the F4 good in the comics is how the stories embrace the ridiculous nature of the F4's powers, rogues gallery, and subject matter. They're fun reads, about a family of scientists using their powers and intelligence to solve brightly-coloured end of the world scenarios. Fant4stic was completely different, and shared no similarities to F4 bar characters' names, and the team's powers. So if what you want to make isn't an F4 movie, but a realistic exploration of the dangers of interdimensional travel, of PTSD and of extreme body horror, then why call it an F4 movie? Sure, having a brand attached rather than being an 'original' film will bring in more of an audience, but when they see it, they won't be dumb enough as to be fooled by your thinly-veiled commercial cynicism.

Besides, people are growing bored of dark, gritty and grey. It got stale years ago but managed to coast along; the commercial success of films like Guardians is mercifully making people demand better.

So I'm not looking forward to BvS, Wonder Woman or Justice League because I doubt they'll really be BvS, Wonder Woman or Justice League at all. Bring on Suicide Squad, though, for sure.

I hope I've explained that well enough, and that you can see what I mean.

As a side-note, if you want to see a good version of the Flash, I wouldn't hold out much hope for the film, but the TV series on CW is absolutely stellar and I couldn't recommend it enough. This is an example of good superhero storytelling: the protagonist's emotional arc is the core of the story, and the action (which is incredible) supplements and adds to that arc, as opposed to informing it (so many films and shows in general, not just of this genre, get this wrong). It's also brightly-coloured, the science holds up within the show's internal logic (though not the real world), and it revels in the source material. Superhero storytelling done right.

"Nothing goes down 'less I'm involved. No nuggets. No onion rings. No nothin'. A cheeseburger gets sold in the park, I want in! You got fat while we starved on the streets...now it's my turn!" -Harley Morenstein

The thing is...they're not (aside from the three that I listed, and the upcoming Spider-Man reboot). That's just an opinion perpetuated by internet hate culture. The fact is that the MCU actually produces decent superhero films, something which most other studios have struggled to do (the only notable exceptions being TDKR trilogy, Spider-Man 1 and 2, and Fox's most recent two X-Men films).

The 'endless sequels, reboots and spin-offs' that people like to keep complaining about are a symptom of Hollywood in general, and I'm honestly sick and tired of people pinning the blame on the few good action blockbusters being released purely because they're not a fan of the genre, because that's exactly what happens. Should we just forget about the current state of the Terminator, Pirates of the Carribean, Transformers, Fast and Furious, and apparently now Independence Day franchises? Because internet hate culture likes to.

"Nothing goes down 'less I'm involved. No nuggets. No onion rings. No nothin'. A cheeseburger gets sold in the park, I want in! You got fat while we starved on the streets...now it's my turn!" -Harley Morenstein

Movies... they sure don't make them like they used to, huh?

My main gripes with Guardians of the Galaxy is in its use of crude language and how it portrays its characters. I'm a pretty big Chris Pratt fan, (I've watched several of his films now, and, used to watch Parks and Recreation from time to time) and, really loved what he brought to the characters of Emmet from The Lego Movie and Owen in Jurassic World.

Specifically in the latter, his portrayal made the film much more interesting to me. He perfected the average guy turned leading man within the confines of just over 2 hours, saving people, standing up to the scary beasts brought back to life, and still cracking jokes along the way.

Actually, I started to really care about the film so much, I was really angry when it DIDN'T end on this shot... Yeah, I was so hooked in, only bad editing decisions snapped me out of the cinematic experience - and that doesn't happen very often, especially when I start out not really liking the film.

But, while the character of Owen wasn't shy to throw around some minor curses every once in a while - it really fit his character. He's some low-wage worker at a theme park, he becomes Indiana Jones-ish; it makes sense. However, Starlord and a raccoon, in my opinion, had much less of a reason to... Especially in a film marketed toward children. (Sure, it's PG-13, but, that's more-so Disney's fault for making the toys, the games, the LEGO tie-ins)

The Marvel Cinematic Universe is full of minor curses, flashy but almost pointless action sequences, and, usually features humor that I'd associate with being "click bait" just for the lowest common denominator... And none of that's the Marvel comics I grew up with. However, the dark and gritty, dull blue tinted world of the current DC cinematic Universe is just as disruptive...

I loved The Dark Knight, and still do, however, its color correction (or color grading, or "digital look"... whatever you want to call it) almost made me sick at first. A dull green-hued atmosphere fit The Matrix series because, it was supposed to be a little nod to what "world" was being shown. However, dull teal (and strong orange) like that featured in the Transformers films is really not to my liking.

I prefer the bright reddish and deep, rich vivid colors of The Mummy, Raiders of the Lost Ark, or even The Asylum's Sherlock Holmes... but that's purely on a visual basis. Story-wise, I could almost care less if its really thought provoking or just something fun to waste time away with some popcorn. I love watching movies, and, will certainly watch a lot more - no matter the genre, subject matter, or time period. I just love watching films.

However, because the Superhero genre is my second favorite, (Superman: The Movie, Batman: Mask of the Phantasm, Superman Returns, Spider-Man 2... anyone?) it's sad to see the day when the two opposing studios exaggerate to both ends of the spectrum (light and comical, dark and gritty) and it isn't to my liking.

I long for the day when the current "superhero movie craze" dies down a little... Then, they'll have to be much more competitive - and hopefully, then revitalize the genre.

Can't wait until they start making them like they used to...

You are all correct; it does get a bit overwhelming, and each movie is dependent on the others where they're not standing on their own, and it's like the comics' universe, where readers are encouraged to get every issue every month.

If anything, it seems that Marvel is over-planning to me.  They've mapped out out their release schedule for the next five years at least.  The problem is that the main characters are subsequently locked into a fixed pattern and are contractually obliged to appear in multiple sequels and cross-overs for years to come.  This kills off any tension because you know you will see them in another movie 2 years down the road.

Honestly, I'd much rather see big-budget movies based off other pre-existing intellectual property, like say, BioShock, Fallout, or even Half-Life 2.  I'd argue that each of these has a world and storyline/lore just as rich and deep, if not more so, as any comic-book universe.  It's actually surprising that this hasn't been done before--while video-game film adaptations have a notoriously poor track record, gaming is now just as big a business as cinema, and even hires Hollywood talent to do voice-acting on a regular basis.  The hype for Fallout 4 shows that there'd be a market for this.  Plus several prominent figures in the film industry (such as Guillermo del Toro) are well-known to be fans of video games.  And I highly doubt that any halfway competent director could possibly do worse than Iron Man 2.

I haven't seen Guardians of the Galaxy, but I can't say I follow your logic.  From what I understand, Star-Lord et al. are career criminals, mercenaries, and assorted scum and villainy in general.   It wouldn't make any sense for them to get hung up on some "minor curses".  Despite me generally having an aversion to excessive bad language (or violence, etc.),  and I don't have much of a problem with it if it's done well.  It highly depends on the context of the film and how well it fits.  For example, I actually don't mind the dialogue (or most mature content, for that matter) in Pulp Fiction.  Pretty much all of the characters in the story are mobsters, hitmen who blow off other people's heads for a living, or in some way connected to the underworld.  In that light it would be strange and jarring for them to be picky about something comparatively facile such as swearing.  Now, if nuns or school-children started talking like that, on the other hand...

You do realise The Dark Knight was shot on 70mm film with IMAX cameras, right?

I'll admit I much preferred the art direction of Batman Begins, with a gritty, modern-day Blade Runner-esque feel, but it makes sense for Gotham to be portrayed the way it is in The Dark Knight.  The gleaming, orderly, blue-tinted city is meant to contrast the Joker's anarchy, it being a clean slate for him to bring disorder to.  Order vs Chaos, if you will.

Really, Dyland?  Really?

Last edited by Mr Vertigo (January 26, 2016 (07:36pm))